Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Crocodile Talent Buyer Eli Anderson… | Hey Newt, I could Use Some Help Hau… »

Monday, January 16, 2012

2012 It's Way Too Early to Care About National Polls...

Posted by Paul Constant on Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 4:45 PM

...because the national campaigns haven't even really started yet. But there's an interesting little fact tucked into this Politico story about a poll showing Romney and Obama running neck and neck:

But the president enjoys more positive support than the former Massachusetts governor, with 74 percent of his supporters saying they would be voting “for” Obama and 21 percent saying they would be voting “against Romney.” Among the GOP hopeful’s supporters, just 33 percent said they were “for Romney,” while a whopping 58 percent said their vote was more “against Obama.”

Unless you have some strange circumstances—a third party candidate, say, or severely bad news for the White House—it's really hard to win an election when your candidate's most striking feature is he is not the incumbent. Romney should be up in the polls for likability right now. He's got the press in his pocket, and he's facing a handful of continually shrinking, and very unlikable, opponents. If he's not dominating in likability now, he's only got one more chance to make up those numbers with his base, and that's the Republican Convention, when the party presents their candidate's biography and mission statement. It's hard to think how they'll manage to package Romney—wealthy son of a failed presidential candidate—into something eminently likable.

Comments (17) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Wonder what you would say if these polls showed Obama with a strong lead over the GOP freaks?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 16, 2012 at 5:18 PM

Well, there's always systematic voter disenfranchisement and electronic vote theft. I'd say Romney has a good shot.

Posted by Proteus on January 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Two words: John Kerry

Another nominee who main people voted for him was he was not Bush

Posted by Democrat1234 on January 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

I though the same poll showed Ron Paul neck and neck with President Obama ...

Posted by Will in Seattle

on January 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

you're an idiot.

all it will take to win this election is to not be Barak Obama.

Posted by Romney/Santorum2012 on January 16, 2012 at 5:39 PM

Some smart national team needs to figure out a trick way to tie "Romney" and "the One Percent" together firmly in the public's mind. With the media in the claws of Murdoch and the like, that could be, umm, difficult.

Posted by MarkyMark on January 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

If things aren't working for you, you'll go for anyone who promises change. Since things aren't working for most people who aren't part of the 1%, they'll forget that the reason things aren't working is due to people like Romney, and they will vote for the Republican nominee. That's what Obama has to counter.

Posted by sarah70 on January 16, 2012 at 5:52 PM

one side (r) offers a shit sandwich & the other side (d) offers half a shit sandwich & people can't get their hands on that half a shit sandwich fast enough. american democracy is a sad, sad joke.

Posted by philosophy school dropout on January 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM

@8 Maybe elections do not turn out the way you think they ought to, because most people disagree with you about how things should be?

Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 16, 2012 at 7:34 PM

ken, it isn't about the way the elections turn out. hell, did you even read my post? it is about the options we are given. we don't get any. we get a shit sandwich or half a shit sandwich. that is the problem. i don't care who we choose any more. that was entirely my point. nice try at a dodge, though.

Posted by philosophy school dropout on January 16, 2012 at 7:43 PM

@10 The Republican primary voters still have options. They can nominate Mitt "Greed is Good" Romney or get behind Rick "Homohater" Santorum. Christian crazies might prefer Santorum. However, they realize that his no-sex-except-for-making-babies platform won't win the general election because most Americans enjoy the occasional orgasm. That is why many of them will hold their noses and vote for Mittens. More extreme candidates, like Santorum, never get a shot at the presidency because the general public does not want such people as it's leaders.

Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM

I dunno -- this kinda scares me. I've always gotten the impression that a lot of my fellow voters were motivated more by vitriol for the opponent than by fondness for their own.

I mean, despite his obvious & frustrating shortcomings, I actually like Obama (and suspect a lot of others also did/do) but kinda can't help but feel his election was aided considerably by virtue of his not being, nor being associated with, his predecessor.

Posted by mikethehammer on January 16, 2012 at 9:05 PM

I like Obama but his candidacy was not successful on his merits, but instead on a reaction against Bush and a reluctance to vote an old man into the Presidency. Unfortunately, that's not the situation this year. (The populace is 4 years stupider also; it appears to be a progressive disease.)

Posted by sarah70 on January 16, 2012 at 9:58 PM

@10: sadly you're displaying your limited reading comprehension skills again. Ken's point is that maybe it's you that's got the problem here.

Sure you (and many others...going right back to George Wallace and his famous "there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two") don't like either of the choices you're offered or have been offered. That's fine (I ain't none to happy either).

But, the fact is, most folks do see a sizable difference between Obama and Romney or Santorum or Bush. You may think they're stupid, but as Ken noted, there's way more of them than there are of you. Way more.

And, honestly, anyone who thinks there's half a shit sandwich worth of dif between Obama and any of the Repugs isn't playing with a full deck.

Posted by gnossos on January 16, 2012 at 10:13 PM

@14: Whatever KittenKoder had, it seems to be catching. Both sides are the same! All politicians are equally crappy!

Posted by venomlash on January 17, 2012 at 12:34 AM

It's only January! Of course Mitt's likeability is going to improve by November. People flip flop from day to day (like Mitt!) as the media change "the story" constantly.

Huntsman is walking back his criticism of Mitt and, even though no one paid attention to him in first place, that criticism will be wiped clean from memory by next week at the latest.

Posted by Mr. J on January 17, 2012 at 4:37 AM

Even smart people sometimes employ lazy arguments, and "neither option is ideal to me, therefore both are exactly the same, therefore there's no point in choosing either option" is fundamentally a lazy argument.

Posted by Proteus on January 17, 2012 at 8:53 PM